Until 1882 the condition of celibacy attached to all fellowships in the College; Queen Elizabeth held strong views on the matter, even discouraging the marriage of Masters. The necessity of taking orders was somewhat relaxed in 1860. The system had its advantages--it tended to produce promotion; for the natural inclination of mankind to marry, vacated fellowships; the disadvantage was that men with a real taste for study or teaching had no certain career before them. The question of allowing Fellows to marry was raised in the eighteenth century, but met with little support and much opposition. Even in the middle of the nineteenth century a University Commission inclined to the view that celibacy was inseparable from the collegiate system. [Illustration: THE "BRIDGE OF SIGHS"] The clerical restriction had the effect of chiefly confining selection to College offices to those who were in orders. These in due course went off to benefices in the gift of the College, these acting as a species of pension. One form of benefaction frequently bestowed by past members was the gift of an advowson; one or two benefactors left estates, the revenues from which were to accumulate, and with the sums so raised advowsons were to be purchased. Presentation to livings went by seniority of standing, and this practice, with the restriction on marriage, gave rise to the belief, still prevalent in many parishes where the College is patron, that the College on a vacancy always chooses for the next incumbent "the oldest bachelor." It seems probable, without any minute statistical inquiry, that most of the Fellows left the College before the age of forty. A few remained on for life. It is difficult now to reconstruct a picture of the High Table, made up as it was for many years of a group of middle-aged or elderly men, with a considerable admixture of youthful Fellow Commoners. During the eighteenth century the proportion of Fellow Commoners was probably from one-fourth to one-third of those dining together, and constraint on both sides must have been almost inevitable. The terms "don" and "donnishness" seem to have acquired their uncomplimentary meaning about this period. The precise significance of "don" is not easy to express concisely; the most felicitous is perhaps that of the Oxford _Shotover Papers_, where we read that don means, in Spain, a gentleman; in England, a Fellow. The abolition of the Fellow Commoner was perhaps chiefly due to the rise of the democratic spirit and a general dislike of privilege, but there are other grounds for welcoming it.